Making a treaty with a foreign power is de facto recognition, and the Senate is supposed to confirm all treaties.

Mind you, I think it's a silly-ass thing to waste the Court's time on, but they didn't ask my opinion.

-- Mal

But the point is, the ruling is claiming Executive authority when the authority is shared between the Executive and the Senate.

-- Mal

does not equate either to a treaty or approving or 'recognizing' everything that country does

Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem either

Can we have a link to the Treaty so we can read the text?

with a bit more study I suppose...

If he wasn't born in Israel, where was he born?

other by the State Department.

if he was born in a hospital in the western part of the city, that was part of Israel prior to 1967 then his passport can easily read West Jerusalem Israel

Jerusalem is one of those few places where simply listing the city name is sufficient for the State Department.

Wow...

You simply asked where.

People born in Hong Kong do not have to list a country. Are you against that?

Hong Kong is part of China. Passport information should be standard. There is no city on earth that is not part of a country, including Jerusalem.

?
Additionally, Do Canada and the UK share your position that every city must legally have a country?

And I don't care what the position of the UK and Canada is. In my passport I was required to put down the country I was born in. Others should also. Jerusalem is not stateless. It never has been.

I just want to know why the USA SCOTUS, UK, Canada, Russia, etc. have not gotten your memo that every city has a country.
Could it be that your position is rare?

The vast majority of the people of the U.S. would say Jerusalem is in Israel. Next I suppose you will say Kiev is in Russia because it was once the capital of Russia. Or that Lhasa is in Tibet instead of China. Never ends. Our State Department loves to play political games. But that is all it is. A game that all see though.

I compared your position to the position of the entities that make decisions for their respective countries. Thats why I mentioned Canada, Russia,etc, and it was clear I wasn't talking about public opinion.

By the way, your game-playing theory actually meant that not only the State Department, but also all those countries I mentioned love to play "games".

fail.

Love to have you weigh in.

There is no definition of "non-person" in this country, as far as I know.

so putting Jerusalem on his US passport is a moot point - it has no impact.

When did I call Jerusalem a "country"? You simply asked "where was he born".
In fact, this is the first time in this thread that you type the word "country".

The US says he wasn't born in Israel, so I'm simply wondering how does he get a passport if he has no country of origin?

People born in Hong Kong can't have anything under "country" either, in a USA passport.

I know naturalized US citizens have their place of birth on their passports. Or are you talking something different?

People in East Prussia, South Sudan, Golan Heights, West Bank and Jerusalem do not have to list a country.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=tjd2VdftNsO0yASckoXgDA&url=http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/94669.pdf&ved=0CB8QFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHXCPtPkcB_IlsvB8UsA3gHHTNNtw&sig2=MZJk2ROWopft82lYGzEsfA

So what are the Occupied Territories? They used to be called Palestine until Israel occupied them, so I guess it would be correct, if not politically expedient, to call it The Occupied Territories of Palestine.

That such determination is made by the Secretary of State NOT Congress is the ruling of the court. As far as the USA is concern his country of birth is Jerusalem and will remain so till there is an international settlement of the Israel and Palestine.

For purposes of Passports and anything to do with the USA.

He is a US citizen because of his parents not where he was born.

In 1695 a Dutch orientalist, Hadrian Reland, conducted a geographical survey of the region. He found that none of the known settlements, ancient or contemporary, bore Arabic names. Most names were Hebrew, Greek, or Latin in origin. Moreover, the land was almost empty of inhabitants, desolate, the few towns (Jerusalem, Acre, Safed, Jaffa, Tiberius and Gaza) inhabited mostly by Christians and Jews, with Muslims present only in very small number, mostly Bedouin in the hinterland.

His book, Palaestina ex monumentis veteribus illustrata (Utrecht, 1714), offers no evidence for a “Palestinian people,” “Palestinian heritage,” “Palestinian nation” or “Palestinian homeland” in ancient times; and it provides a powerful argument against the outrageous and transparently false assertions by some modern Arab spokespersons that what most people know to be Jewish history is in fact “Palestinian” history. Today’s defenders of the “Palestinian cause” are reduced to stealing Jewish history and heritage precisely because the so-called “Palestinians” have none of their own.

Today’s “Palestinians” are indeed an invented people. But how did they get invented? Arabs themselves answer that question for us.

Yes, Palestinians Are an Invented People

Last Friday, the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, did something revolutionary. He told the truth about the Palestinians. In an interview with The Jewish Channel, Gingrich said that the Palestinians are an "invented" people, "who are in fact Arabs."

His statement about the Palestinians was entirely accurate. At the end of 1920, the "Palestinian people" was artificially carved out of the Arab population of "Greater Syria." "Greater Syria" included present-day Syria, Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan. That is, the Palestinian people were invented 91 years ago. Moreover, as Gingrich noted, the term "Palestinian people" only became widely accepted after 1977.

The names of most of the indigenous peoples that lived in this country meant, when translated into English, The People. (The great majority of those were killed off by the foreign diseases brought to this continent by the Europeans or were slaughtered by those Europeans and their descendents.)

If we follow the same line you seem to advocate in your post, Americans are simply a made up people too... That line of reasoning could make for seriously interesting and complicated debate.

the idea that someone can be a figment of one's imagination is deeply offensive, but if that this is the argument Israelis are going to spearhead in their offensive against the Palestinians, then those who have promoted it have to own it in all its ugliness.

Hard to see with that 6-3 vote. Thomas voted with the majority, this, Scalia voted no, and the two Jewish Justices voted yes. I can't tell by the vote.